I appreciate your cites, but you’ve failed to convince me to change my view.
The studies you cite are not without problem. Using a meta-analysis to “fix” errors in poorly done studies can be difficult. And the original studies do seem to have methodological errors that could easily confound variables like socioeconomic class. The problem is that of a “healthy user effect”. I know you think breastfeeding is a priority, and so do many smart women. The problem is if smart women are more likely to breastfeed, the are more likely to have a higher IQ. Women with a higher IQ are probably more likely to have children with a higher IQ, regardless of whether or not they actually breastfed. Women need sufficient time to breastfeed and this is hard to do if you need to work most of the time to feed your family. Ear infections and colds are pretty harmless for kids; multiple sclerosis is in the ards after birth and I don’t see how breastfeeding might affect this – I suspect a “healthy user” bias again.
A gain of 3 IQ points may or may not matter to someone’s life. But your energy might be better spent on things that lower IQ. As of yet, there are no laws about drinking, smoking or using cocaine during pregnancy. Folic acid supplementation in cereals is not sufficient to fully minimize the risk of neural tube defects. The difference in IQ in these populations is more marked and interventions here would provide greater public benefit.
I don’t see this as a great debate but as a bad idea that the OP will not be diverted from. Reasons that dopers have given for just how bad the idea of having formula available only by perscription have not been considered by the OP. I feel Autz is defending her views, in which case this GD is really an IMHO. I see 12 to 24 new moms every week in the busy high-risk postparum floor I work at as an RN. I help moms get a good latch, position their baby to maximum effect and offer as much support and encouragement as I can. I can’t see making formula less available to babies as a good thing no matter how good breast milk is for them. Food-wise, breast milk is best, formula is next best. Without one or the other, the baby will die. Why take away half of a mother’s easily available choices?
Autz, if you were calling for an information campaign to educate mothers on the benefits of breastfeeding, I’d be behind you on it. However, to call for all formula feeding to be terminated unless it’s deemed appropriate by a third party is the kind of thing that gets my back up. If I want to bottle feed my kids, I will, and no one has the right to deny me that option. I don’t need a reason or an excuse - I am an adult capable of making my own choices. If I choose not to breastfeed because I don’t feel like it, then the government doesn’t have the right to butt in and tell me I must because studies show that many children benefit from breatfeeding.
I was breastfed. I’ve had a poor immune system my entire life. I have always come down with every cold and flu that goes around. Are you quite sure that I’d be dead now if I’d been formula fed? I don’t think it would have made the slightest difference in my life - well, aside from the fact that people would have blamed my health problems on fomula and claimed that if I’d been breastfed, I’d have been healthy.
To breastfeed or not to breastfeed is such a personal choice, and not one that any other person has the right to force on you. Educate people about the benefits, but then they have to make up their own minds. Enforcing “perscriptions” for formula is only going to disadvantage some and violate the rights of all.
Autz, you still haven’t offered any information on why this should be legislated rather than taught, offered, or promoted. This is pre-Rowe vs. Wade mentality we’re talking here. Why would you want a government agency to control what you do with your body?
What about the dads? As a new (breastfeeding) mommy, I have seen a whole new, wonderful side of my husband. He loves (and I do mean LOVES) to get up in the night to feed the critter. It gives them a chance to bond, just the two of them. In fact, I didn’t wake him (hubby) up last night for the 3am feeding and he was upset this morning that he’d missed it! Usually, he gives him breastmilk (got quite a stash of it in the freezer) but the formula is just as good. Some women don’t produce enough extra milk to let their husbands take over a feeding or two. Therefore, I think some husbands (of STRICTLY breastfed babies) miss that additional opportunity to bond with their babies which is afforded them by the odd bottle of formula. I know Mr. Doughnut cherishes that time together. How can that be a bad thing?
Two weeks after my son was born my appendix burst. I was on strong antibiotics and I couldn’t breastfeed. I did go back to BF after I was done, but I wasn’t about to poison my child.
With both my children, my milk lost its strength at around four months. My son even lost a pound when he was four months old. We popped him on cereal, he gained eleven ounces in five days, and now his new sandals fit me! (he’s not yet 13.)
I agree that all mothers should at least attempt BF if it is medically possible. But to choose FF because you don’t want the hassle or because you don’t want the ladies to sag (guess what, they’re going to anyway!) to me is just selfish. But I am certainly NOT going to force women to do it. It is a wonderful bonding experience and I would urge every mother to try it if they can.
I don’t get it. You don’t think harmful is a good marker? Well, then why do you think that formula should be by prescription only? If the issue isn’t harm to a child, then what is the issue?
But let’s assume that increased risk equals actual harm.
Do you also think that: Frosted Flakes should be banned? McDonalds should be closed? Ben & Jerry’s should be prescription only? Tricycles prohibited?
Sua, That is exactly whay I concluded the post you quoted by asking:
"So where do we draw the line? Most people agree that it’s not OK to use personal choice in some parenting decisions, like feeding your child whiskey, but some issues are left to parental discretion, like what kind of cereal you give them.
So… in your opinion where should the line be drawn?"
Most people agree on the obvious black and white sides of the issue. But in the middle is a fuzzy grey area. Some people thing you should draw the line on one part of the grey area, some people would draw it in a different place.
So, what criteria would you use to define what is just an issue of parental choice, and what is just too harmful to allow parents to decide about on their own?
Well, actually, autz, it’s perfectly legal to give your child wiskey if you so desire. If you give your child so much wiskey that you cause your child actual harm, then Child Protection can get involved.
So, if you want a line drawn, it’s at actual harm or actual endangerment.
This is why I would like to see a study of breastfed / non-breastfed siblings. In my case, I was the only sibling out of three who was breastfed. While I would very much like to say that I am by far the smartest of the three of us that wouldn’t be at all accurate. None of us has been IQ tested so I don’t have hard numbers but, in all honesty, I’d have to say that we are, for all intents and purposes, equally intelligent. Unless you wanted to use education as an indicator of intelligence – in that case, my youngest sister (non-breastfed) is the smartest. She has a BA degree. I (breastfed) am next smartest with about 2 and 1/2 years of higher education. My brother (non-breastfed) has taken no college courses. As far as health goes – my brother had far more ear infections than I did. However, I (the breastfed one, remember) had problems with my tonsils, strep throat, things of that nature. My sister was the healthiest of the three of us in terms of childhood infections (she had a minor heart defect but that was obviously not attributable to diet). I’m seeing much the same pattern with my own children. I breastfed my almost 16 year old son, but was unable to nurse his (now almost 15) sister. My boy has been somewhat healthier than his sister – but only to a very slight degree. Especially given that most of Doe’s health problems have stemmed from her prematurity (she was born at 27 weeks, weighing 2 lb., 9 oz.) and her cerebral palsy (not, of course, attributable to diet). My kids haven’t been IQ tested but, like my siblings and I, seem about equally intelligent. Unless you use grades as an intelligence indicator, in which case, my daughter (non-breastfed) is smarter. Nick’s grades are decent (2 A’s, 2 C’s, 3 B’s on his last report card) but Doe’s are exeptional. She has had straight A’s for the last 2 years and has been accepted into a literary arts charter school program (the York County School of the Arts).
Well, I’d offer my own kids as a sample, but they aren’t bio sibs. My daughter is homemade, my son, adopted.
Sua,
We don’t always draw the line at harm. Carseats, for example. Doesn’t hurt my kids not to be buckled in…unless I get in an accident…which seems even more likely if they are bouncing around like monkeys in the backseat. However, there is considerable (and I’ve decided to use the word considerable since significant has a statistical meaning in this conversation and I’ve been using it with both meanings) risk involved in not having your kids belted in properly.
Autz, from what you’re saying, ALL parental decisions should be regulated. There are choices in every single aspect of parenting. Every decision you make has an option you could have taken that may or may not be “better” than the one you choose. For instance, if you’re going to breastfeed, why not eliminate the bottle and use only the natural breast to feed your kids? That, by your standards, is the best way…no chance of bottle propping, close, intimate time with the baby, etc. The entire proposition is ridiculous. Next it will be “no tie shoes…they might trip on the laces…you’re not protecting your kids to the maximum.” Sheesh…if they’re are any folks out there supporting Autz’s proposition…please speak up. This debate has dried up. Not unlike my breasts after the shot I asked for before even giving breastfeeding a shot. My business–not Uncle Sam’s.
Autz, with the logic you use here, everyone would have to get official permission to make ANY parenting decision. What about tie shoes? You might trip and hurt yourself. Let’s just regulate the hell out of tie shoes.
There is always a “safer”, “better”, “healthier” way to do just about anything.
If anyone here can support Autz’s proposition, please do. This “debate” has dried up (not unlike my breasts after I asked for the shot).
Just wanna put my head in here and say “thanks and a tip of the hat” to EchoKitty, Cranky, Dangerosa, and Guin for doing most of the heavy lifting here while the rest of us stand around and watch. Y’all rock!
I am currently pregnant, and am planning to breastfeed. Yes, I’ve read The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding and have even attended a La Leche League meeting.
Yes, I think that breastfeeding is superior to bottlefeeding, for any number of reasons which have already been well delineated in this thread.
However, it will not break my little heart if I can’t nurse, or if I have to stop. While there are benefits to breastfeeding, and while formula isn’t the cyanide-laced carrier of All Things Bad that autz seems to think it is, what it comes down to is this: It’s food. Either product is designed to convey nutrition to the baby. Period, end of discussion. What matters most to me is that my son is healthy and well-nourished. The rest is just details, okay?
I’m not really seeing how 3-6 points is really that big a jump. (Of course, I was an FF-baby and I’m ringing in at about 170, but that’s anecdotal…)
I didn’t think that it was IQ that really made so much of a difference in how much of a “success” one is. So, um, forgive me if I fail to see how a 154-IQ person is at a loss compared to a 160-IQ person. I thought that one’s work ethic, ambition, goals, etc. was more determined by the environment in which one was raised (it could, perhaps, be linked to genes somewhat, but no one knows that for sure yet, right?).
I had no idea that I won’t be able to get a doctorate due to the fact that my mother had no desire to breastfeed either my sister (who plans to be a surgeon) or me.
I’m going to ignore the last part of your post about getting a doctorate as facetious sarcasm.
You’re right, those differences aren’t huge and that’s been mentioned before. They are especially inconsequential to someone who is a genius, as you are. One could probably argue that those few points might make a difference, however, to someone who was destined for an IQ in the average range. Not that we have any of those on the SDMB, of course.
Whatever the relationship between environment and future success in life, the supposed difference in IQ between BF and FF would be in addition to those effects. No research I’ve seen summarized has ever suggested that BF is more powerful or important than other contributors to aptitude and intelligence.
As far as I can tell, that little IQ boost is just one small piece of the overall evidence that BF is better. I know a lot of BF advocates, and the ones who are credible and serious don’t emphasize IQ as the primary benefit. Frankly, I’m more convinced by the cost argument, but then that’s more a personal benefit to me than the public health benefits we’ve been focusing on.
that wouldn’t be at all accurate. None of us has been IQ tested so I don’t have hard numbers but, in all honesty, I’d have to say that we are, for all intents and purposes, equally intelligent. Unless you wanted to use education as an indicator of intelligence – in that case, my youngest sister (non-breastfed) is the smartest. She has a BA degree. I (breastfed) am next smartest with about 2 and 1/2 years of higher education. My brother (non-breastfed) has taken no college courses. As far as health goes – my brother had far more ear infections than I did. However, I (the breastfed one, remember) had problems with my tonsils, strep throat, things of that nature. My sister was the healthiest of the three of us in terms of childhood infections (she had a minor heart defect but that was obviously not attributable to diet). I’m seeing much the same pattern with my own children. I breastfed my almost 16 year old son, but was unable to nurse his (now almost 15) sister. My boy has been somewhat healthier than his sister – but only to a very slight degree. Especially given that most of Doe’s health problems have stemmed from her prematurity (she was born at 27 weeks, weighing 2 lb., 9 oz.) and her cerebral palsy (not, of course, attributable to diet). My kids haven’t been IQ tested but, like my siblings and I, seem about equally intelligent. Unless you use grades as an intelligence indicator, in which case, my daughter (non-breastfed) is smarter. Nick’s grades are decent (2 A’s, 2 C’s, 3 B’s on his last report card) but Doe’s are exeptional. She has had straight A’s for the last 2 years and has been accepted into a literary arts charter school program (the York County School of the Arts).
